TheDay755Hero
Refugee
How did it become 900 after removing 40 CAD?
PC Will This Computer Rig Run 7 Days To Die Well?
- Thread starter TheDay755Hero
- Start date
TheDay755Hero
Refugee
Oh, sorry I thought it was a replaced power supply (weak eyes suck)
mr.devolver
Refugee
Just don't... Pairing Ryzen 5 1600 with the newer B450 isn't really a good choice. Either step down to B350, or step up the CPU to Ryzen 5 2600 instead (recommended), or would the Ryzen 5 2600 overshot the budget?
Also, it might be worth it to consider the RX 570 if it's the only available AMD and if it's about the same price like GTX 1060 3GB, because the Nvidia GPU here only has 3GB, whereas RX 570 comes in 4GB and 8GB versions. Might be better for future to go with 8GB version, but even 4GB GPU would be worth it. The performance isn't that much different anyway, about 11% in favor of Nvidia, but then again it's 3GB version will soon leave you behind.
EDIT:
I see the price of this GTX 1060 3GB is 279.99 CAD, should you buy on this website, you might as well go with cheaper RX 580 starting at 259.99 CAD. With the lowest price GPU in the catalog from the link I sent you, you get 8GB of VRAM compared to 3GB on Nvidia for lower price with slightly higher performance of ~5% and maybe then you could step up the CPU to Ryzen 5 2600 for the money you save and have a little beast of a gaming pc. Also, going with AMD GPU right now gives you 2 games for free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fox
Refugee
Before making assumptions and suggestions, maybe take a look at the prices. Not only is the B450 newer and slightly better, but it's also cheaper than the outdated B350 boards. So I don't see any reason to suggest anyone to go with the B350 boards no matter the CPU you go with anymore. And yes, obviously a more powerful CPU would cost more and go over budget.
RX 570... really? Take a look at these scores and you tell me which is the better option:
RX 570: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+RX+570&id=3741
GTX 1060 3GB version: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1060+3GB&id=3566
Prices don't mean squat these days when it comes to performance or features. Otherwise Apple would actually have good products... Also, AMD GPUs often have gaming support issues with early access games... usually minor, but almost always annoying. Nvidia is just a more enjoyable experience, so why not stick with them?
And I have yet to find a game requiring more than 3GB of Vram at 1080p (4k is a different story obviously). I have the 6GB version with my 1080p monitor and I kind of regret wasting that extra $200 for the 6GB version, or at least that's what it cost at the time when I bought it. Besides, the op mentioned no game requiring more than 2GB of vram (aka 7D2D), so that's another reason why I went that route.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr.devolver
Refugee
What's the point of going with the newer B450 if you go with the older CPU though? And did you read the EDIT section of my post? I originally recommended RX 570, because I was under impression that he was going to buy stuff at his local store and he said that RX 570 was the only GPU from AMD that was available for him, but in the EDIT section of my post, I did mention that if he was to buy these components on the store you linked to, he may as well go with RX 580 there, because, they offer 8GB of VRAM compared to 3GB on Nvidia and give 2 games for free, all for lower price and 5% better performance overall.
EDIT:
Also your argument about the comparison of RX 570 and GTX 1060 is invalid, because the GTX 1060 in the chart on the link you provided is the 6GB version, those are NOT the same cards because the 6GB version is 7% more powerful than 3GB version which you recommended in the build.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fox
Refugee
RX 580 is a rebranded RX 480 and provides less overall performance than the GTX 1060 3GB: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+RX+580&id=3736
That 8GB of vram on that card will NEVER get used by any game, even at 4k resolution which that graphics card can't handle anyways.
Why not go with the B450 motherboard? Is the world going to explode just because he uses an older CPU with it? The motherboard fully supports it, it's currently cheaper, has more features... I mean seriously, give me 1 good reason why anyone would want the older motherboard? If he / she can't get that motherboard at that price, then sure, go with the B350 board. But I'm not going to recommend an older board when there's no reason to.
And you must be blind, cuz it says 3GB version on that webpage. It even says it on the link too.
That 8GB of vram on that card will NEVER get used by any game, even at 4k resolution which that graphics card can't handle anyways.
Why not go with the B450 motherboard? Is the world going to explode just because he uses an older CPU with it? The motherboard fully supports it, it's currently cheaper, has more features... I mean seriously, give me 1 good reason why anyone would want the older motherboard? If he / she can't get that motherboard at that price, then sure, go with the B350 board. But I'm not going to recommend an older board when there's no reason to.
And you must be blind, cuz it says 3GB version on that webpage. It even says it on the link too.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr.devolver
Refugee
Rebranded or not, it's more powerful than RX 480, and more powerful than GTX 1060 3GB.
Again, in your link you are comparing RX 580 to 6GB version of GTX 1060, NOT the 3GB version of GTX 1060 which is actually weaker.
Why not go with the B450 motherboard? I never said to not go with it, I said that if he was to opt to B450, he better have good reasons for that. Ryzen 5 1600 is NOT a good reason. A good reason would be Ryzen 5 2600 and better. Why? Because those new features you're mentioning on the B450 motherboard are available only to newer generation of Ryzen CPUs, that's why. Should he opt to older generation of CPU, he may as well stay with the older B350 and not really suffer any motherboard performance loss - this was proven in one of the hardware tests on Youtube, but I don't feel like looking for the exact video link right now, feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.
- - - Updated - - -
When I click the GTX 1060 in the chart that you linked to, it shows it's the 6GB version.
Well, benchmarks are not everything though. GTX 1060 6GB and RX 580 8GB are on par, but GTX 1060 3GB is no match for RX 580 8GB in games and 7 days to die is a really demanding game, so it can use all the power you throw at it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fox
Refugee
Does this help?: https://i.imgur.com/nKVaczd.png
After looking up benchmarks from another respectable site, you're right in that it might be equivalent or 5% better than the GTX 1060 3GB version for some games, but I'd still never recommend an AMD GPU. I see ppl complaining about graphics issues with games (including this one) all the time and they almost always have an AMD GPU.
After looking up benchmarks from another respectable site, you're right in that it might be equivalent or 5% better than the GTX 1060 3GB version for some games, but I'd still never recommend an AMD GPU. I see ppl complaining about graphics issues with games (including this one) all the time and they almost always have an AMD GPU.
Such facepalm...
Last edited by a moderator:
mr.devolver
Refugee
The original link doesn't show what you show in the picture, but ok. Still, "scores don't lie" is something I had to laugh at, especially after reading all those scandals where benchmark tests were artificially manipulated in favor of certain companies, but even if that wasn't enough for you, maybe we should stick here to what really matters. He's a gamer and that's where he needs the performance the most, he's going to play games, not buy an expensive PC to do just benchmark tests on it, so even if "scores don't lie" was to be the believed truth, we should take real world scenarios into consideration more than just some generic benchmark test results. In real world scenarios, many people said that RX 580 is much better choice than GTX 1060 even 6GB version because it's cheaper and beats GTX 1060 in many games. Sure, many is not all, but the point is that he must consider all of his options and RX 580 is one of them. As for the facepalm, well it would have been easier to discuss if you actually tried to provide a counter-argument, if you have one, instead of just facepalming for no apparent reason.
Fox
Refugee
I edited my post...
Intel are known for artificially manipulating benchmarks, and they tried again to do it recently but were called out on it and were humiliated. I don't know of any other scandals that were attempted recently, not since the GTX 970 fake vram incident. Unless you consider re-branding stuff a scandal, which I guess it would be... but that happens all the time with all companies.
There is zero evidence (from a respectable source) to suggest the B450 is slower on the 1st gen CPUs compared to the B350. It has all the same support and same board layout, it just has a few tweaks and improvements mainly for better ram overclocking, that's it.
Intel are known for artificially manipulating benchmarks, and they tried again to do it recently but were called out on it and were humiliated. I don't know of any other scandals that were attempted recently, not since the GTX 970 fake vram incident. Unless you consider re-branding stuff a scandal, which I guess it would be... but that happens all the time with all companies.
There is zero evidence (from a respectable source) to suggest the B450 is slower on the 1st gen CPUs compared to the B350. It has all the same support and same board layout, it just has a few tweaks and improvements mainly for better ram overclocking, that's it.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr.devolver
Refugee
Man, I wasn't saying it's slower? Where did I say that? I only said there is no benefit for opting to B450 over B350 (IF you are going for Ryzen 5 1600), because the performance of the motherboards are practically the same and the new features of B450 are only useable with Zen+ CPUs, therefore Ryzen 5 2600 and better, not the older Ryzen 5 1600. This is something you can look up in the official information materials from AMD.
well i can run 7days on my potato so you should be good 
Operating System
Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz 43 °C
Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 531MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
Hewlett-Packard 3048h (XU1 PROCESSOR)
Graphics
DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (ZOTAC International) 60 °C
Storage
465GB Seagate ST3500413AS (SATA) 38 °C
465GB Seagate ST3500630NS (SATA) 44 °C
Optical Drives
HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22NS50
Audio
High Definition Audio Device
Operating System
Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz 43 °C
Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 531MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
Hewlett-Packard 3048h (XU1 PROCESSOR)
Graphics
DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (ZOTAC International) 60 °C
Storage
465GB Seagate ST3500413AS (SATA) 38 °C
465GB Seagate ST3500630NS (SATA) 44 °C
Optical Drives
HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22NS50
Audio
High Definition Audio Device
TheDay755Hero
Refugee
Oh my god! how are you still breathing????well i can run 7days on my potato so you should be good
Operating System
Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz 43 °C
Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 531MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
Hewlett-Packard 3048h (XU1 PROCESSOR)
Graphics
DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (ZOTAC International) 60 °C
Storage
465GB Seagate ST3500413AS (SATA) 38 °C
465GB Seagate ST3500630NS (SATA) 44 °C
Optical Drives
HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22NS50
Audio
High Definition Audio Device
but that info is helpful at least now I know that the setup @Fox created for me will run the game fine!
eh - don't judge so fast. In your starting post you said that you want to run it in 60+ fps in ultra details. Thats not gonna happen. I think most people here just tell you a pc configuration on which this game will run, but not run with your preferences in mind.
Sorry to say, but with that preferences for a17 and your limited budget: forget it.
Sorry to say, but with that preferences for a17 and your limited budget: forget it.
TheDay755Hero
Refugee
What about this settings...
- Draw Distance - Lowest
- DOF - Off
- SSAO - Off
- Shadows - Highest
- Reflection - Highest
if this isn't fine can you suggest settings that I can use to achieve 60 fps? piss-off ultra settings but textures must be the best and shadows too!
also, I dont see the need for very long draw distances now that we have distant terrain POIs and trees
Last edited by a moderator:
ricp
Refugee
My point is that A17 won't suddenly go boom and your specs will look too low, if anything it will be the opposite. The kit you buy to support the game as it is, will most likely be considerably more than is needed several updates down the line.
It's very unlikely, certainly in my opinion, that the requirements will increase over time, only decrease.
TheDay755Hero
Refugee
how do you know? don't you see how the pimps didn't care and released a half-baked alpha 17 with tons of useless graphical effects, boring, slow and dumb gameplay? this's alpha 12 remastered!
--- Update ---
Also! they use Unity
Fox
Refugee
What does performance loss mean if not slower? Whether there's benefit or not is completely irrelevant (even though I think you're wrong), the point is, if it's cheaper or similar price to the b350, then it would be dumb to go with the older board.
Op gave a tight budget, small list of games to be played on it and resolution, I worked with that. The setup I suggested is more than capable of handling this game on high settings probably forever since this game is nearing beta phase which will be optimizing phase. So, if all goes well and is a bit lucky, the op might be able to run this game on ultra at 60+fps after all.
This is the setting I run my similar setup to: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/940581010212108489/220BE55498AC1D7640973F0607A4A58956D6F278/
My current overclocked gaming rig:
- Ryzen 5 1600x @ 3.9GHz (Noctua NH-U12S SE cooler)
- 16GB DDR4 ram @ 2933MHz
- GTX 1060 FTW+ 6GB ACX
- Samsung 860 Evo 1TB SSD
So I'd be surprised if you couldn't get similar graphics settings with this game.
The devs worked on Alpha 17 for over a year... so I definitely wouldn't call it half baked. As with all major updates, until it gets released, it's difficult to know where all the issues are, and that's why it's soft launched in experimental mode right now. But I do agree in that the devs seem completely over obsessed with messing around with graphics details instead of making the game run better. And they really love changing things all the time instead of just making something official and permanent.
Last edited by a moderator: